Mortgage dispute dp/me

[Haribogirl]

Dp and I took bought property 13 years ago for £160.000
I put deposit down of 80.000 he got mortgage for his 80.000( with both names on it, as he would of been able to get this much on his own)

So 13 years on and he's had a brain wave, he now decided that because of the interested he's had to pay for getting the mortgage that he's actually paying more than me!!
My argument is he must of known that interest was added in the first place and it's not up to me to now start paying it.

He won't it so that
He as added his mortgage payments up for the last 13 years which amount to £79400.
So when he reaches 80k(same as I put in at beginning) he then wants me to start paying half the mortgage.
Also at the beginning in solicitors, solicitor advised me to make a deed of trust to guard my 80k in the event of anything happening in the future.

He doesn't agree with this now! As he realised that in event off I would get this and half the equity we make, he thinks all off a sudden I'm ripping him off.

This is only in the event off!! Which I have mentioned.

I feel I've just protected myself as advised, he now thinks I'm ripping him off

Some of the responses on here demonstrate why we need money management taught in schools. Your DP (and some of the posters on here) is wrong. The cost of the mortgage includes the capital he borrowed and the cost of the loan. As a poster mentioned earlier, you need to separate the cost of the asset from the cost of servicing the loan.

If he really does not understand the basics of capital cost and interest repayment then he is really going to struggle to understand compound interest and the money you could have earned on your capital if it was invested.

Good luck OP

Cross charge him for the interest or investment income your £80k would have made.

Then LTB.

Dp and I have this arrangement. It's my good fortune (because I saved, by going without earlier in my life) I had my 50%, he knows he has to pay interest as he couldn't put down his whole 50%, so he has to pay what the banks want to lend him the money - what has that got to do with me?

Ignore him re the deed - we have one too, if he's signed it then it's not open to him to just decide he doesn't like it now. Presumably you both took legal advice?

PS I forgot to mention the option of him paying off the mortgage and you removing the deed of trust, so you would get 50/50 each if the house was sold. Based on the current value this means £125k each and it would be a wise investment for him (the outstanding mortgage is only £37k and he stands to gain £60k in terms of his share of the equity). But it's not such a good move for you, since you would lose £20k of your share of the equity.

Well if you hadn't put your 80K in the house you could have invested it in shares and made a killing for all anyone knows.

You've at least lost out on savings rates which haven't always been as poor as they are now, so he pays his interest, just like you've lost out on yours.

There are some really odd ideas on this thread.

So, the way we did it, same situation where I had the money and he didn't.

House was, say £300k, I put down £150k, he put down £60k, mortgage £90k. Mortgage HAS to be in both names because mortgage company will not lend to someone if another adult is on the deeds. And I have to be on the deeds cos I paid 50% of the house!

So, house bought as tenants in common with 50/50 shares.

DOT says, in event of sale - mortgage gets paid first, it has to as they have a legal charge. Then I get my £150k, he gets his £60k (if the value is below this then it would be split proportionately), and any equity after that is 50/50.

He could not have bought such a big/nice house without my input so he gained from that. And even if he had bought a small nastier house he'd never have done it with £150k (where he needs to live for dss school), so he has also gained from that. He has a £90k mortgage so pays far less mortgage interest than if he had bought a house on his own - which would have been more like £250k, so he'd have a £190k mortgage, so he benefits there.
I lose the use of £150k.

All seems fair to me.

We did then write wills to leave each other our 50% anyway, but that was our choice and either of us can change our minds on that.

He can cut his costs by paying the mortgage down/off. Dp has paid off £14k over two years and has now remortgaged to a better deal and shorter term so he will pay more pm but reduce the overall interest by c£10k.

The dp in this op has the same options - more options as he can now pay the mortgage off with his lump sum.

YABU - i think you need to move your DOT - you should only get 50% of the value of the house not 75% as it stands today. I also think it needs removed because if the value of the house goes down your investment goes down with it - you should not get your full investment back, you should only get back 50% in relation to the value of the house at the time.

The problem with ignoring the deed of trust is that if you split, you are as liable for the mortgage as he is. You might decide to split it 50/50 but he has to pay back the mortgage from his half.

That's the thing. If the OP ditched the deed of trust, she would only get 50% of what's left after the mortgage has been paid. Not 50% of the total.

I would keep the DoT in place until the repayments have all been met, then split valur 50/50. DoT is your protectiob if he defaults. You would be a mug to give that up for a man who accuses you of trying to cheat him. Remember he agreed to all this - he had legal advice too!

If you feel the DOT isn't right, get legal advice and rewrite it. But don't be without one.

The mortgage always has to be paid back first as the bank will only lend where they have a first legal charge over the property. They have to be aware of the DOT and it cannot override their charge unless they agree, which they won't.

Trying to Just read through. Many many different views(which I expected) but have to go out now till 8

So will look forward to some reading later

Thanks people for your input, will also try and answer questions if I can remember them all. X

Rephrase it as follows:

You bought half the house with your 80k. He bought half with his 80. where he got that from is irrelevant to the discussion of who owns what. you each get half of the proceeds when the house is sold. You put yours back in savings, he uses his to pay off whatever loans he has outstanding.

If he had borrowed the money on an unsecured loan he would have been paying interest and capital repayments to that loan over the past years and he would use his share of the proceeds to pay that off. It's only because the word mortgage is used that it's confusing the issue! There's a red herring about your name bring on the mortgage - you haven't been paying towards it so it's still (morally) his debt and still his share of the house.

If you had both been paying the mortgage then you would sell, take outstanding mortgage off, give you your 80 back then split the remainder. Which would be right because (ignoring interest) if you put in 80 deposit, then pay off 40 each of the mortgage you would have put in 120 and him 40. but that's not what has happened.

See a lawyer. Get the house put as tenants in common with equal shares. Put the mortgage in his name only.

House is worth 250k now, mortgage is only 37k so there is equity of 213, if the house was sold today the and split 50:50 that gives both parties 106.5k each - the OP is still quids in and has more than she put in. Whereas with the DOT in place OP would get 146k and her DP would get 86k - sorry but that's just not fair given she has paid no more than her DP.

I'd say keep the dot
(I only called him a money grabbing tosser as he seems to be treating the op badly)

You put on 80k he put in 80k so you both take out 80k and split the remainder (he has his half to pay off his mortgage)

"House is worth 250k now, mortgage is only 37k so there is equity of 213, if the house was sold today the and split 50:50 that gives both parties 106.5k each - the OP is still quids in and has more than she put in. Whereas with the DOT in place OP would get 146k and her DP would get 86k - sorry but that's just not fair given she has paid no more than her DP."

The thing is if the op was saying her and DP were super happy and getting married and SHE would like to make things fairer, then fine. But it seems from this and her other thread that her DP might have nefarious reasons for doing this - I'd say the best thing to do is leave it as the status quo legally, and if they did break up she could always give him 50% equity in the house, but she shouldn't sign away her legs rights to someone who sounds like they might be planning a dick move

He was happy all of these years to be a house owner at your risk . When you had $$ and he did not, he didn't come up with any if this shit. Now he has several lump sums and clearly has an agenda to force you to give up your legitimately and legally protected 80K so he can grab your $$ and split. DO NOT change your Dof T op. You are going to need those $$ when you are again on your own . Plus your son has to be protected too. You worked hard for that $$ . Do not allow past emo to guilt trip you into giving it up. You are not the money grabbing sob here . I'd be reconfiguring what kind of a person this man is in the light of what he is revealing now. How dare he accuse you of what he is guilty of. Next he'll be accusing you of having an affair. You might benefit from having some distance from him so you can see what is going on more clearly. Also a solicitor will help you protect your legitimate interests. I reread your previous thread and think you know what he is up to. Bet you have been subsidising the everyday expenses and boosting this man's lifestyle for the last 13 years. Time to get angry and say enuf is enuf . Would your son be a good ally?

peggy
peggy
"that's just not fair given she has paid no more than her DP"

Not actually true. She's paid £80k. He's paid £43k of the mortgage so far. So she HAS paid more.

Please OP, for gods sake don't get rid of your deed of trust. Your DP is wrong. Armarmai and other posters are correct. You need to go to a solicitor with your DP who can explain it to him. You really do need to protect your money because you are NOT MARRIED and any posters who think your arrangement is unfair have a very tenuous grip on financial matters.

Anotheremma speak about distorting the facts. He borrowed 80k to pay the pervious house owner so he has paid 80k for his share of the house

Anotheremma

They have both paid £80k. He then has a loan. The bank doesn't own the other part of the house but they have a charge over it.

The fact op is on the mortgage is a complication. The fairest way would be for him to take a new mortgage in his name alone and then get rid of the dot. Then they are 50:50.

peggy

"Anotheremma speak about distorting the facts. He borrowed 80k to pay the pervious house owner so he has paid 80k for his share of the house"

I'm not distorting the fact at all! He hasn't paid £80k. They took out a joint mortgage for £80k and he has paid £43k of that mortgage. The way things stand, they are jointly responsible for repaying that mortgage. If he pays it off, he will have paid £80k, but he hasn't paid it off yet. If they sold the house now, the remaining £37k on the mortgage would be repaid before any other money was split between them. So it's still a joint debt, even if he intends to pay it. He may not pay it of course if he intends to end the relationship.

You get 50%. He gets 50% but then he pays off the remaining mortgage out of his share. That's fair.

Any other way then you are subsidising him, and then you should ask for a share of his payouts to make things fair. He won't like that.

Keep the DOT
He's whining as it has occurred to him that if he leaves you he's not getting half the house. He signed it, it stands. You can whine about it being unfair, he agreed to it.

He is now sat on a lump sum and takes home much more than you each year. He should use his money to clear the mortgage.

So OutToGetYou, once your partner has paid off the mortgage it's still split that way? How on earth is that fair? You will always get 90k more than him even though you have both made the same capital expenditure. You did yours up front, he did it with a loan. If the house has stayed the same value then he'd actually lose 45k. It's not till the house is worth 390k that he'd come out evens.

I appreciate that you've made the wills out to each other etc. And there may be other factors such as looking after children. But that doesn't make the basic principle right.

Obviously the OP needs to make sure she is protected. And signing away the DoT whilst there is still a mortgage on the property is the last thing she should do. But equally, some of the responses seem to be that because he is being a twat and they might split up then screw him.

I have changed my mind, didn't know about your other thread or the questionable future of your relationship. If there is a chance he is looking to cut and run there is no point you ditching the DOT. I was suggesting that as a harmonious way forward as a couple. But if there is a possibility of him leaving, dont do it, at least not without him finishing paying the mortgage off first. As things stand, at the moment, you could sell, the mortgage would take first cut (with no recognition it is supposed to be his debt) then your 80k and then you would get half the remainder. You have essentially both got £80k from outside the relationship, yours from before, his from lump sums. It seems equitable that you both leave with 80k plus half any price movement in the house. But if you ditch the DOT without him paying the £37k, then you could end up responsible for that and only getting half after that, while he sails away with his lump sums and more than he was due from the house.

I haven't read other thread but my advice for him to pay off mortgage with lump sum and you to ditch DOT is only if you are secure in your relationship and want to be nice. If you are worried about his intentions just explain that your £80k is worth £118k in todays money so he still has some catching up to do. Suggest that if he doesn't want to pay interest he should repay the mortgage using his lump sum, and leave it at that.